On 5/24/07, J.D. Falk <jdfalk at yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> On 2007-05-24 15:45, Damon Sauer wrote:
>> >> Seems to me that only the sender can know for sure whether the message
> >> was supposed to be transactional.
> >
> > Yes, this is true, for the first round. In which we would research the
> > issue via the ARF and let the ISP know that it was truely a
> > transactional message and possibly provide further information to the
> > ISP via a back-channel about which of our servers, IP range, domains,
> > etc. are used in transactional mailings.
>> Can't you do that anyway? A report type of "spam" doesn't mean you
> can't attempt to contact the report generator with questions/concerns.
>Sure, I am just asking that a method be in place that would allow for
the ~possibility~ that if an ISP does do transactional tracking, that
it can be labeled as such.
> > 1) Diminish or absolve the scoring for mislabeled spam reports.
>> Scoring and other spam filtering techniques are entirely up to the
> system that received the message. Adding more report types won't change
> that.
This is where we differ in thought. I see transactional messages as an
class of email entirely on its own. Such as personal, business,
non-delivery report, domo, auto-respond, marketing, transactional and
spam.
>> ARF says absolutely nothing about what either the report generator or
> the report recipient is supposed to do with the report. That's been one
> of the primary design goals all along, because we can't predict how the
> best practices will evolve.
>I can predict that this would be very useful.
Regards,
Damon